Posted
by
timothy
on Sunday January 01, 2012 @07:50PM
from the thrill-of-victory dept.

McGruber writes with some news that slipped by in December: "Floyd Landis won the 2006 Tour de France, but was later stripped of his title after testing 'positive for an unusually high ratio of the hormone testosterone to the hormone epitestosterone (T/E ratio).' In February 2010, Slashdot covered the news that Landis had been accused of hacking into the laboratory that detected the unusually high T/E ratio. Since then, Landis was 'convicted in absentia by a French court for his role in hacking into the computers of a French doping lab,' according to National Public Radio. Landis and his former coach Arnie Baker both received 12-month suspended sentences, according to USA Today."

At least someone intelligent on slashdot. I have lived for many years in France *and* in the US and I have grown extremely tired of the constant misrepresentation of what happens in France by US media (and vice versa, unfortunately). The unavoidable subsequent avalanche of xenophobic comments by people who obviously do not have a clue is no less appalling. It generally takes me no more than 5 minutes to debunk 95% of lies spreads about France/US in the media, too much work apparently. Sigh.

Lance Armstrong is a cheating doper, no doubt about that; he has simply failed too many doping tests that anybody can deny that. But for technical reasons he can't get a doping sentence because retro-testing can't be used as evidence.

If this were a cycling forum, everyone would know that they are all doping and that beating the tests is part of the competition. Lance was the best cyclist in part because he was the best doper.

Ever heard of circumstantial evidence? Doesn't directly link them, but can easily be enough to land a conviction in many cases. Hard to say much without more information, of course. Quick check at the WSJ link for that quote shows that Landis' trainer, a Mr. Baker, had stolen files up on his website from the lab, given to him by Landis' attorneys. Pretty damning evidence.

Why does doping get such a bad rap?
The anti-doping groups are terrified of new doping methods they cannot detect.
This is great, if the doping has no adverse side effects and is not detectable then I want some!
I want these athletes testing out drugs and the long term affects and me benefiting from watching their performances and some day using safe versions of the drugs

Anti-doping is a waste of money. They should be putting money into making doping safe.

Fairness is pointless, some people are born taller, stronger, faster. Some have more money for better training, coaching, and equipment.
No reason we cannot level the playing field or push it beyond its current limits with chemistry.

Plus if your sport requires such little skill that doping can help you win it, then it is not much of a sport anyway

If you were absent without good reason then you can enjoy being charged for failing to turn up.

And...

[...] it goes against natural justice to convict you without the opportunity to defend yourself.

If you're absent without good reason, as you so helpfully pointed out word for word, then you HAD the opportunity to defend yourself and you chose to pass on it. Else "not showing up" simply becomes "get out of jail free".

There is a reason "convicted in absentia" actually exists as a real legal thing.

Instead we watched Jordan, well into his thirties past his physical prime, lead the Bulls to multiple championships.

Well he's retired now, right? And if he attempted a comeback this year, it would be a weird joke, he couldn't even play bench. He hasn't lost the skill and the NBA hasn't overtaken the skill level Michael Jordan once had. So obviously skill is a contributing factor, but athleticism is also a good part of it.

There's millions of kids who aspire to the NBA, and tens of thousands of very skilled basketball players. 300 make it to the NBA. With such a large talent pool, there's plenty of player who are 98% as good, but just not quite there. I sincerely believe that these players who didn't make the NBA, if given unfettered access to steroids, would be better than Kobe Bryant. Even if they didn't, Kobe would no longer be such a dominating player, unless he also started juicing. Steroids are just that effective, and strength that important.

Think about Barry Bonds, who at the age of 37 had a sudden power surge and shattered batting records. A hundred years of baseball history tells you, baseball players don't dramatically increase their power in their late 30s. They do what A-Rod is doing in his mid 30s, getting dramatically less powerful and with less ability to recover sufficiently. Or look at Jose Canseco, who was always the worse player to his twin brother Ozzie. Jose got more into juicing and won unanimous AL MVP and had a near Hall of Fame career, Ozzie Canseco was never a regular starter.

Really all legalizing steroids would do is mean, every single professional athlete would have to use steroids. This would surely filter down to college athletes and just amateurs who want to get good. I think steroids deserve more study than they receive, maybe in the future all old people will take HGH, but I don't think we're at a point that the general population should be using them.